ML20072R785
| ML20072R785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072R783 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304060343 | |
| Download: ML20072R785 (2) | |
Text
'
L.
. ~ -.
~ ~.
\\
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
wasmworow, o.c, asses
~
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 86 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-32 AND AMENDMENT NO. 87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281 i
Introduction By letter dated November 22, 1982, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 for the Surry Power Station, Unit Nos.1-and 2.
The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications to allow the core thermal limits and overtemperature and overpower AT setpoints_to be restored to values corresponding to 100% thermal design flow.
1 Technical Specification page 6.5-3 is added to this amen'dment because it was inadvertently omitted' from Amendment Nos. 82 and 83 dated March 1,1983. This page pertains to retention of records and was submitted February 18,1983, as a supplement to the licensee's application dated December 1,1982.
Discussion In a letter dated August 9,1977, (Ref.,1), the licensee provided the justi-fication for operation of Surry Units 1 and 2 with substantial steam generator tube plugging.
It addressed the impact on non-LOCA accident analyses of steam generator tube plugging of up to 40% of the tubes with consequent Reactor Coolant System (RCS) flow reductions to as low as 90% of the thermal ~
' design flow rate considered in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). A revised s'et of core thermal operating limits and corresponding overtemperature and overpower AT setpoints consistent with the assumption of 90% of RCS design flow were also submitted. The safety analyses presented in Reference 1 were based on these low flow setpoints and were approved by the NRC on December 2,1977.
From 1979 to 1980, the licensee undertook an extensive steam generator repair,
program resulting in total replacement of the steam generator tube bundit for both Units 1;and 2.
The licensee indicates that the startup measurements for subsequent cycles have confirmed that RCS flow -rates for both units are well in excess of the 100% design value. Steam generator perfomance following the tube bundle replacement program,has been good. No tube plugging has been required to date. However, since the completion of the tube bundle repair program, the licensee has retained the conservative setpoint limits as provided in Reference 1.
l 8304060'343 830314 PDR ADOCK 05000280 P
.u y,' T -_
-- -... x
.e 2*
~
Evaluation The revised limits and setpoints c'ontained in the proposed Technical Speciff-cation changes (Ref. 2) are consistent with the FSAR assumption of 100%
of thermal design flow, and are identical to those provided in Reference 3.
These were the previously applicable limits and setpoint.s in effect prior to the Reference 1 submittal. Since the proposed limits and setpoints are identical to those previously analyzed; and have been checked' for current fuel cycle conditions,and since the thermal design flows have been expert-mentally verified, operation with the proposed Technical Specification changes will not invalidate any existing safety analyses for Surry Units 1 and 2.
We have reviewed the core themal 1:imits and overtemperature and overpower AT setpoints provided in References 2 and 3 and concur with the licensee's assessment that these. limits and setpoints are identical and therefore no accident reanalysis is required for the proposed changes in the Technical Specifications.
Environmental Consideration
- s We have determined that the amendments do_not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact., Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact.and, pursuant to 10 CFR 351.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded.. based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident'previously evaluated, l
' do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is-reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Date:
. March 14,1983 Principal Contributors:
V. Leung l
G. Schwenk l
l l
m,
.--Q-
.b...
4
^
~
3-
' ' REFE'RENCE
~
~
~
1.
Letter from L. M. Stallings (VEPCO) to E. G. Case (NRC).." Amendment to the Operating License, Technical Specifications Change No. 57,"
dated August 9,1977.
2.
Letter from W. L. Stewart (VEPCO) to H. R. Denton (NRC), " Amendment to Operating License DPR-32 and DPR-37. Proposed Technical Specification Changes," dated November 22, 1982.
3.
Letter from L. M. Stallings (VEPCO) to K. R. Goller (NRC), " Amendment' to Operating License DPR-32 and DPR-37, Technical Specifications Changes No. 27," dated March 12, 1975.
4 m
e e
!1 i
w 9
9
,